Tuesday, June 2, 2015

How this NDP surge is different from the last one

The projection has been updated, including the two most recent polls from EKOS Research (for iPolitics) and Ipsos Reid (for Global News). Both polls show a remarkable three-way race, with EKOS gauging the numbers as 30% for the Conservatives, 29% for the NDP, and 27% for the Liberals, and Ipsos as 31% for the Conservatives, 31% for the Liberals, and 30% for the NDP.

The Ipsos poll serves as a much-needed confirmation of the EKOS numbers, which had been virtually alone since the Alberta election of May 5.

The projection still lags the polls a little, in part because May has been a quiet month (10 polls had been done in April, while we're up to seven for May). Polls that show a three-way race currently take up 61% of the projection. But the NDP has averaged 29.5% in those polls, whereas they have averaged just around 23% in the remaining polls taking up 39% of the weight.

Nevertheless, the NDP's growth has been remarkable. This is especially so when we consider that the model, at this stage, is designed to react slowly to what could be blips in voting intentions. Since the week ending on May 4, the New Democrats have jumped from 22.9% to 27.1%. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have dropped 1.3 points over that time.

The Conservatives were leading in the seat projection then with between 125 to 164 seats against 93-129 for the Liberals and 65-91 for the NDP. That count currently stands at 118-153 for the Conservatives, 77-120 for the Liberals, and 87-118 for the NDP.

The New Democrats have picked up 5.5 points over that time in British Columbia, 2.5 points in Alberta, 4.5 points in the Prairies, four points in Ontario, 5.8 points in Quebec, and 0.8 points in Atlantic Canada. Interestingly, though, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have been the sole relinquisher of votes. The Liberals have suffered the bulk of the losses in Alberta, the Prairies, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada, but the Conservatives have slid most in British Columbia and Quebec.

A recent piece by the Canadian Press suggested that this latest surge was the first to happen for the NDP since the late 1980s, making it difficult to make comparisons. Of course, as readers of this site know, the NDP has surged much more recently than that. The party was averaging about 35% in May and June 2012, putting it in first place nationwide. So, we do have something to compare the current uptick to. Let's do that.

What I've done below is taken the two most recent polls from EKOS and Ipsos and compared them to the polls from these two firms in late June 2012. At the time, Ipsos had the NDP ahead with 38% to 35% for the Conservatives and 18% for the Liberals. EKOS put the NDP at 32% to 29% for the Conservatives and 19% for the Liberals.

For both Ipsos and EKOS, the NDP was doing better in 2012 than they are now. We should expect their numbers to be better at the regional level as well. But that is not so. The NDP's electorate has shifted since the last time the party was popular.

First, the good news for the NDP. It has made some major gains in Alberta. Both Ipsos and EKOS put the NDP at 13% in the province at a time when the party was doing better nationwide. Now, they have the NDP at 25% to 31%, meaning the New Democrats are roughly doubling their support from 2012. That extra support means a boost of around two points nationwide. Without it, the race would not be as close.

The NDP is doing slightly better in Quebec now than it was in 2012 meaning that, proportionately speaking, its Quebec support is far more significant to the party than it was three years ago.

Two areas have mixed news. According to Ipsos, the NDP is doing about as well in British Columbia as it was doing in 2012, while EKOS has the NDP doing worse. The opposite is the case in the Prairies. These two regions, then, are inconclusive.

But the party is doing significantly worse now in Atlantic Canada than it was doing in 2012. And more importantly, the New Democrats have not made the same inroads into Ontario that they had during Thomas Mulcair's honeymoon period.

This is important, because the gains the New Democrats have made in Alberta will not translate into a lot of new seats. They were much better positioned, with their strong numbers in Ontario, in 2012. The New Democrats have put together a bit of a West + Quebec coalition that aligns with their 2011 breakthrough in Quebec and their traditional strength in B.C. and the Prairies. In 2012, however, they had added Atlantic Canada and Ontario to that coalition.

This is why we're looking at a three-way race instead of a two-headed contest. The Liberals are doing much better in Atlantic Canada and Ontario than they were in 2012, putting them in contention. The Conservatives have their western bases as well as a good chunk of Ontario, giving them the edge in seats. The NDP can now threaten to win a plurality thanks to inroads in B.C., as well as a handful of new seats in the Prairies, in addition to their retention of Quebec.

It makes for an interesting regionalized race between three parties. The contest is between the Conservatives and the Liberals in Manitoba, Ontario, and parts of British Columbia (Vancouver suburbs) and Atlantic Canada (the Maritimes). It is between the Conservatives and the New Democrats in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and parts of British Columbia (the Interior) and Ontario (the southwest and north). And it is between the Liberals and the NDP in Quebec and parts of British Columbia (Vancouver), Ontario (Toronto), and Atlantic Canada (Halifax and Newfoundland). There are plenty of smaller local battles that include other match-ups on Vancouver Island, in Calgary, in Winnipeg, in Quebec City, and in central Quebec.

A swirling mess of a campaign that could produce virtually any result. Will the summer clarify things?

The most amusing result from this Abacus poll is that 43% of those who "don't know" who they voted for in 2011 would vote Liberal now. Doesn't that perfectly parallel the general vagueness of the Liberal party and its leader/ship?

Thanks for this. Interesting numbers. This poll backs up others showing the Greens within striking distance of making it a four-way race in BC. A true four-way race in BC would produce chaotic results in a province that historically tends to elect opposition members in high numbers.

14% Province-wide for the Greens means a whole lot more for them on Vancouver Island. But that still doesn't necessarily mean a four-way race there as the Liberals don't seem very competitive on the Island lately.

The Island isn't the only place where the Greens can win (Guelph comes to mind), but it's where most of their best shots are. They're likely to be competitive in every riding on the Island.

And you see that in candidate nominations. With seven Vancouver Island ridings up for grabs, as of February the Greens and NDP had nominated candidates for 6/7 ridings, and the Conservatives and Liberals were at 2/7 nominated apiece. Shockingly to me (as it's a riding I would expect them to do well in), the Conservatives still don't have a candidate in Cowichan-Malahat-Langford, whereas the Greens and the NDP both nominated their candidates for the riding in late January.

Despite having incumbents here, the on-the-ground organization for the Conservatives seems to have suffered on Vancouver Island in recent years. Compare to two elections ago (2008) when the Conservatives won all but two seats on the Island.

The NDP is hitting an issue that they haven't had before - a need for a true national campaign. What the Greens are doing, targeting a handful of ridings and going all-out in them is not an option anymore for the NDP instead they must think like Liberals and Conservatives in the respect of chasing seats everywhere. It will be a challenge for them I'm sure organizationally as many potential target ridings will now get far less direct attention and be in danger, but the plus is they have far more that might go to them (well over 100) which means absolute power is possible. So this is a problem they wanted to have but now must be careful as to how they chase it down. Burn out is a big risk.

Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I see the Greens as likely to win in more than 1-2 ridings. Their chances seem so good in Cowichan-Malahat-Langford, in Guelph, and in a few other places. They have much stronger candidates, and a lot more money, than they have in the past. In the case of Cowichan-Malahat-Langford, expect it to get a boost from polls showing the Greens in strong contention in Vancouver Island (which will happen, even if the Greens have to commission the polls themselves). The Greens had their best ever fundraising year in 2014, and it looks like Elizabeth May intends to spend most of her time in other ridings (especially other Vancouver Island ridings) than her own during the campaign. If you remove town-hall meetings, she's spent over 80% of her pre-writ public events outside her riding, and most of them are criss-crossing Vancouver Island again and again and again.

Is your model a top-down model without adjustment for stronger candidates or anticipated higher-spends this time vs. last time? Or do you adjust for that and simply think they won't be enough of a difference?

My model takes into account the average votes received as well as comparing trends in each riding for each party to the trend of the province/region. I don't adjust for anything else. If anything, adjusting in the past brought me to make more mistakes. I do, however, adjust my formula to account for local polls during an electoral campaign if the numbers differ greatly to mine. So as of this moment, I don't have any adjustments made to my model, but come the election, I may tweak numbers here and there to reflect local effects if I have polls to back it.

The Ipsos headline is misleading : "Orange Crush is East, Not West". A simple comparison of their two most recent polls (today's and that of 10 April) shows the NDP up in every region, with the sharpest increase in Alberta (8%) followed by Quebec (7%), and Ontario (5%) and with the party alone in first place in BC. So a little short-sighted to view the surge as only an eastern phenomenon.

Yeah, that whole article had a weirdly pessimistic tone as far as the NDP's electoral prospects went. When from what I can see they're very well positioned for next election, better positioned than they have been at any point since Trudeau won the leadership. NDP supporters have a big reason to feel excited.

Harper's biggest issue will be convincing supporters to get out and vote I suspect. He has done enough to annoy people in his party and outside it so many feel he needs replacing. Guess we'll see how hard he works to demonize Trudeau.

I used to be Conservative and switched to Green back in 2008 after figuring out no one there listens anymore. The Greens have a 170+ page document listing where they stand on issues and how they would pay for each promise - a policy I think all parties should follow and send to an independent body that would review them and say if the numbers add up and if not what they really add up to. No more waiting until late election to hear what a party really is promising and how they would budget it. No more promises like Rob Ford made (subways for free). Apples to Apples comparison so voters can decide which party priorities are matching their own without wondering how many lies are in there. I know - I'm a dreamer if I think that'll ever happen.

It'd be nice if the Libertarian's gained ground and started running everywhere. They appear to have tried in Ontario running in 74 ridings. The one against me was a kid who was lost up on stage at the one debate, the one in the other Thunder Bay riding is a known racist who ran an ugly full page ad on the final day allowed in the campaign full of anti-First Nation rants. The core of Libertarian, small government is a good thing. Sadly too many extreme wingnuts run for them still. If we had a PR system though I bet they'd get better candidates quickly as with 0.81% of the vote in Ontario they might have got a seat or been close to it in a true PR system.

Good update of the national political scene regarding the NDP. I don't think it will last for the NDP however, at some point the race will turn into a two party race as all FPTP elections tend to do. That race favours the larger party, at the moment the Liberals, the NDP mau usurp the Liberal position but, with a wobbly economy I think the oscillating classes will side with the Grit devil they know as opposed to the unknown bearded monster. We already see this to some extent with the inability of the NDP to be competitive in Ontario. If the NDP can not compete in Ontario then they leave the next election as a two way race between Harper and Trudeau.

ummm...not sure what you mean by the Liberals currently being "the larger party" compared to the NDP. Right now the NDP has about 100 seats in Parliament and the Liberals have 30-odd - maybe my math is bad but 100 is a lot larger than 35

Maybe Capilano is talking about their position in the model... Which Eric has just stated in this post doesn't really reflect the full extent of the NDP rise as there have not been a large enough selection of polls.

I would however have to say that he's just making stuff up to suit his point. The NDP for the moment are clearly on the rise and the Liberals are in clear decline while the Tories are also starting to loose some support. Cap, the NDP are clearly competitive everywhere even in Ontario and it's extremely obvious that the race is between all three leaders or perhaps Harper and Trudeau against Mulcair.

I think this highlights how unlikely it is for any party to form a majority government.

Harper still has a small advantage (in terms of experience and vote efficiency), but this advantage may evaporate come October. I think the Conservatives' best shot is to stop bleeding support among their "soft" supporters (the Blue Liberals). If Harper can express himself in a more humble manner and show that he at least intends to build bridges, then he can potentially squeeze some support from the Liberals. This will be particularly useful in Ontario, where the party needs at least 75 seats in order to win a majority.

The Liberals need to stop beinng all-over the place. Trudeau's opposition to Harper is conflicting with his support for C-51. If the current trend continues, the Liberals can only rely on the Urban Toronto and Atlantic Canada. I think the Liberals will also be better off diverting their energy to swing ridings - they need the 905 Ontario, GTA, Montreal and most suburban Quebec ridings. So focusing on Prairies, Alberta and BC may be short-sighted.

The NDP needs to prove that they are a genuine alternative to Conservatives and Liberals. They clearly have the momentum with them. While the Alberta Election bolstered the party, they need to be careful - the momentum can evaporate just as quickly as it started. This can happen during the debates, or if the Liberals present a competitive platform. I also think the NDP need to consider the repercussions of their bolstered support - many Blue Liberals may place their support behind the Conservatives in the bid to prevent a NDP government.

I'm not sure of the significance this comparison. The 2012 numbers are taken from what we know was the peak of Mulcair's honeymoon. We don't know that the NDP is peaking now. The actually trends suggest otherwise - a slow steady rise since February, accompanied by incremental losses by the LPC & Cons. That kind of gradual growth seems more solid to me than a honeymoon surge. It may have something to do with the public souring on C-51, but it also feels like a increasing comfort with the NDP brand.

I know that the Internet hates C-51, but I'm not quite sure Canadians have really been moved by it. This poll by Angus Reid shows not too many people are aware of it in detail, and that support is still quite high:

I think the big thing about C-51 is the more people know the more they hate it - the concept the Tory's are selling 'anti-terrorism' sells well, but when anyone hears details and figures out it actually increases the terrorism risk while slashing our rights and the anger comes up quick. Right now it is hitting the Libs on donations and volunteers as many of those people are die hard political junkies like most of us. If the NDP or Greens figure out how to make an effective attack ad around it the Libs could go into free fall and it would hurt the Conservatives too. I expect the NDP is working on that right now while Greens keep it in the back pocket for door knocking (don't have the national budget to make it work as well as the NDP could).

Well if C-51 is not a major factor – and I agree that its detractors (Guilty!) tend to overestimate its political importance – then the obvious question is: what accounts for the sustained NDP momentum? I might speculate that it’s a combination of Trudeau’s unsteady performance and Notley’s win giving swing voters “permission” to consider the NDP option. Once they’re paying attention, Mulcair’s stellar QP performance – strangely heretofore resisted by polls – ices their opinion.

I'm not sure why (I just deal with the what!). One would think that the Alberta NDP victory boosted the NDP's positioning as the anti-CPC alternative, but at the same time we're seeing weak CPC numbers as well. If it was all about movement among anti-CPC voters, we wouldn't see the Conservatives doing so poorly in Quebec, for example. Everyone likes a winner, maybe?

No question the bandwagon effect is real and significant. Here in Thunder Bay we're working on getting it going for Greens as most think 'I don't want to waste my vote' so they vote Liberal or CPC traditionally while NDP gets the benefit of the doubt in many ridings too. That is what makes the 1993 massive growth for Reform & Bloc so amazing - they went from nada to opposition in an instant (politically speaking). The NDP now is getting that benefit of the doubt nationally so more and more are thinking 'not a waste of my vote' so they are parking there. We'll see if they keep there on election day.

I'd say support for C-51 is a mile wide and an inch deep, whereas opposition is quite thick - a mile deep. I've seen some of the biggest Liberal Partisans cancel their memberships over this and have them back the NDP after years of mudslinging them.

But I think it's four-fold: C-51 hurting more social liberal/libertarian voters in both Conservatives and Liberals, the Alberta win shifting *mostly* Liberal support to NDP (but also Conservatives too) within the province, but also boosting numbers outside of it (hurting especially the Bloc in QC), a negative effect from Wynne Liberals and the new PC leader Brown giving the NDP a boost among both rural-populists and urban core voters, and finally a major rallying effect within QC to the NDP across all parties that has dwarfed the rest of the provinces, even Alberta and then Ontario where their rise has been more significant than Prairies, Atlantic and BC.

Eric, on the point about C-51, it may not be widely known, but (and I know this is anecdotal evidence, best taken with a grain of salt) I've had a number of discussions about the bill with one of my cousins who is normally a core Conservative voter (tough on crime, small government, low taxes are what he tends to be concerned about). He instigated all of these discussions and he's told me that for the first time he is going to be voting NDP because the NDP has clearly opposed the bill and C-51 is so unpalatable to him. He lives (and votes) in the 905. It wouldn't take reaching, and making a severe negative opinion, on all that many people for a significant number of seats in the 905 to tip away from the CPC.

I would think a core Conservative voter would find the Greens more palatable (an end to corporate welfare, using the tax system to encourage people to change their behaviour vs. nanny-state legislation with the same aim, a lack of Big Labour influence on the party, etc.), vs. the NDP. And, while I give full marks to the NDP for piling on and adding their voice to criticizing the legislation, weren't the Greens first out the gate at sounding the alarm?

Perhaps your cousin is only willing to vote for someone who they consider a contender. If so, that's short-sighted. The brave souls who voted for the Reform Party in 1988 elected no MPs, but paved the way for a by-election win in 1989 and a total of 52 MPs winning in 1993. That wouldn't have happened if not for people having the courage to vote their conscience in 1988.

I've always reduced the weight of the older poll when two polls overlap. So, in the case of the two most recent Nanos polls, the new one is weighted at 100% of its normal value, while the older one is weighted at 50% (since two of its four weeks are taken into account by the newer poll).

> I've always reduced the weight of the older poll when two polls overlap.

Ah, that addresses my concern then. My apologies for assuming that you did not take corrective action.

I'd still quibble with the details of how you weight long-duration samples, but I understand the wish to avoid changing weighting systems mid-cycle.

As one final query, for the Nanos poll you list the sample size as n=1000, but their public PDF lists the sample size for the ballot question as n=848 (presumably excluding undecideds). Is that accounted for in your weighting, and/or would it make a meaningful difference?

They published them last time so I was able to use the regionals, but otherwise I extrapolate. I estimate Nanos's regional numbers by how his national numbers differ from the national projection, and then apply that to each region. Crude, but I imagine we won't have to deal with such sparse info by election time.

Eric, I was wondering if you've given a "star candidate" bonus to the NDP in Kenora, given that Howard Hampton has announced he's seeking the NDP nomination (and given dynamics in that riding is going to get it). While not a true celebrity or anything, he is a former provincial leader and former MPP for much of the same area as the riding.

What about for ridings that in the past have always been a last-minute candidate selection with little money for a given party, but that now have a candidate selected well in advance and are pegged to have a fully-funded campaign? I'm thinking of my riding of Cowichan-Malahat-Langford where the Greens have never had a candidate even remotely as early out the gate in that area, nor as well funded a campaign, nor as much support from the national campaign. At one event, Elizabeth May fundraised over $30K for this riding, and there's talk of more coming from the main party. Plus E-May has visited this riding very heavily (three times since March). There's no precedent for this level of focus in this area by the Greens before, not even remotely close. I've got to think that's got to move the needle for the Greens. Full disclosure, I'm a Green supporter that lives in that riding so I'm definitely biased, but the greater fundraising, greater frequency of the party leader's visits, and much greater lead time for the candidate are objective differences, so it doesn't mean I'm wrong. :)

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble here but what I see in these numbers is a repeat of the last election and a Conservative majority.

The NDP were polling about here last time. Yep the Liberals were lower but we are not in writ period, and we know that Liberal "supporters" are much less likely to actually vote, aka the 41% who support the Liberals but don't remember if they voted last time.

Conservatives will vote even if their grandmother is dying and they will get an absentee ballot for her to vote too.

The NDP is 40% union controlled at the least and they are organized. They will send in buses to get people to the polls from union workplaces in ridings they think they can win.

The NDP also has 100 riding offices and MPs to help organize, and the Liberals have 30, and yeah that's illegal but if anyone thinks that doesn't happen they are just dumb. There's a big difference in organizing potential there. And the Conservatives are well oiled election machine that has had their war room and computers humming for years.

I think it's important for us all to keep in mind that campaigns matter, and we don't really know what will happen in October. These polls are merely a snapshot, and a snapshot of an environment that differs meaningfully from election day.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but "the NDP were polling about here last time" is so far from accurate that it's breathtaking. Four months before the 2 May 2011 the NDP were in a three-way race with the Cons and Libs?! Even at the start of that election the NDP were well back of the other two parties and it was only with two weeks remaining that the poll numbers had shifted enough to consider the possibility that the NDP might finish ahead of the Liberals. Yes, on election day the NDP received 31%, comparable to these poll results, but everything else is different - notably, the Conservatives just about treading water at around 30-31% now vs. 39-40% in 2011. There's no majority for anyone in the numbers right now, and any of the three parties could win a plurality. As for your notion that "the NDP is 40% union controlled" - I thought Sun Media was dead, but I stand corrected. There's no basis for reality in that number, first, because polls (and election results analysis) have shown that union members have mostly not voted NDP, and second, because the party's connections to the union movement are more tenuous now than ever before (partly because unionism itself has diminished), and they were never so strong as to encourage the phrase "union controlled", unless as a morsel of propaganda. If, on the other hand, you want to describe the Conservatives and Liberals as "corporate controlled" (an easier assertion to support, by the way) then we could begin to have a discussion.

Agreed that the donation limits and stopping corporate & union donations are extremely good things. Next challenge is how to prevent 'wink wink' 'nudge nudge' deals where cabinet ministers get plush jobs immediately after retiring.

The union control of 40% of NDP votes at all conventions is written into their constitution. It is a bare minimum of control and in reality the union membership of their members is far higher than that. But the unions themselves control 40%.

And I meant on election day last time with the comment of the NDP were polling about this high last time because of course we are extrapolating these polls to election day. If an election were held today, I see a Conservative majority in these numbers, given organizational strengths of the NDP and Conservatives, and likely voter turnout.histories.

We're 4 1/2 months away. It's pointless to predict an outcome, especially with this much turbulence in the polls. Personally I think a minority is likely, but given how much change we've seen already this year, for all I know we could get a Green party majority by October.

I've noticed a trend where polls show a minority early in a campaign until a surge at the end which results in a majority, see: Alberta 2015, Quebec 2014, Ontario 2014, Canada 2011Polls currently shows there being 3 strong disparate bases which makes a majority impossible. However I do expect the race to shift to a two party race as anti-CPC voters will coalesce with the LPC or NDP, with the latter looking more likely by the day.

Right now each tribe is a nation unto itself. There are more Nations in Canada than there are members of the UN.

TransCanada has reached agreement with 7 First Nation Nations on their LNG pipeine to Prince Rupert BUT the 3200 member Lax Kw'alaams has turned down 1.5Billion offer to their Nation and basically has Veto on the deal.

The 1.9B education deal to The First Nation NATION was not acceptable to the Nations within the Nation.

This came up when the Liberals were leading in the polls but the Conservatives were ahead in the seats. My policy is to rank by the poll average, since that is a 'truer' piece of information than the seat projection, which is based on the poll average.

The money mentioned is small potatoes compared to the $750 million of taxpayer dollars spent by the Conservatives on self serving ads. Or compared to the insane 60% rebate the political parties get back after an election if they get 10% in a riding, and 50% for national advertising if they get 2% or more. Not to mention more minor subsidies like $1500 to pay for an auditor for each party in each riding. Funny how Harper didn't touch those subsidies when he removed the one democratic subsidy (per vote).

"The Liberals take 32 per cent, the Conservatives 31 per cent and the NDP 28 per cent in the Forum Research survey conducted this week. Though it shows a slight dip in support for the New Democrats — a break from other federal polling released this week — the margin of error means the parties remain in a statistical dead heat."

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.